Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Csaba Czimer
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
These days I rarely play strong 2NT opening, because in a strong club - relay setup we don't preempt ourselves with such strong hands.

When I must play strong 2NT and the bidding goes
2N - 3M-1
3M - 4m (slam try with 5(+)M and 4+m)
I prefer playing this:
Opener takes over the captaincy with accept (unusual, but with such a strong hand it's not bad IMO).
- 1st step outside 4M and 4M+1: RKC m
- 2nd step outside 4M (mostly 4M+1): RKC M
- if 4N is still free then it is an offer to play.

Your case is the simplest one of all four:
4: RKC
4: offer to play
4: RKC
4NT: offer to play

With and , 4 is RKC , 4 is RKC , 4N is still an offer.

With and , 4 is RKC , 4NT is RKC , in this case we can't stop in 4NT

The worst case is + , in this case 4 is RKC , 4N is an offer to play, 5 is RKC (this is the only one which is too high)

The above hand: opener is minimal in HCP, with 7 points in partner's suits and 13 outside, a pretty bad hand overall, thus can simply choose 4, 4N or 5 (at IMPs). If (for whatever reason) someone likes this hand, he can ask RKC with 4, ask the trump queen with 4NT and can stop in 5 (or in 4N playing 1430).
Nov. 14
Csaba Czimer edited this comment Nov. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
We relay players don't face problems like this :-)

Even my software bid it using our relay precision.
1♣ - 1♥ _ prec // 8-12, BAL or ♠
1♠ - 3♣ _ relay // 55+ majors
3♥ - 3♠ _ sets trumps // short ♣
3N - 4♣ _ is it void? // no (that is, 5=5=2=1)
4♦ - 5♣ _ ORKC // upper range, 2 keycards, no trump queen
6♥

(we are too high at 5♣ to ask for side queens, 5♠ would be that)
Nov. 10
Csaba Czimer edited this comment Nov. 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Naturalish (in this case “lite”) systems are not less complex than a full symmetric shape-relay system, if you want the same efficiency. Once you work out the tiny details, they are at least the same size and less elegant.
Their advantage is the less mix-up. At least in short term.
You chose simplicity, and this time paid (a part of) its price.
Nov. 10
Csaba Czimer edited this comment Nov. 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I ran a simulation, it says 44 %

Condition: north has 5+ clubs, his hcps + clubs >= 15.

We make when north has 3 spades and 1-2 diamonds or 2 spades and 1 diamond or 4 spades and 2 diamonds.
Nov. 8
Csaba Czimer edited this comment Nov. 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In Budapest we changed to digital (tablet) play in the upper divisions of our team and pairs championships a year ago. Also on some weekend tournaments. See https://lovebridge.com/

Live (delayed) broadcast, archives, etc. Awesome.
It can be licensed.
Nov. 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Or 2 spades and singleton diamond in the same (North) hand.
Minus 3-0 diamonds.
Nov. 8
Csaba Czimer edited this comment Nov. 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Every slam is fine which has a 2-digit percentage chance :-)
See also: https://i.redd.it/72e03vux9aj11.jpg
Nov. 8
Csaba Czimer edited this comment Nov. 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I bought a bridge magazine (Brydż dla wszystkich) in Poland in 1988, an article in it described the system of Tomasz Przybora and Krzysztof Martens. It was already then and there in their system, they simply called it 5-4-3-1 convention.
I guess they learned it in New York ;-)

Their version looked like this:
- 3: short , 5+ and a 4-card major
- 3: short , 5+ and a 4-card major
- 3: short , 54+ in the minors
- 3: short , 54+ in the minors
Nov. 6
Csaba Czimer edited this comment Nov. 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Here is the poll: http://bridgewinners.com/article/view/how-do-you-play-this-2-zvxq2cs1xl/

140 votes at the moment.
Oct. 28
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Marion, have you noticed that I started with “I think”?
I just created a poll, let's wait a day or 2 and see its result.
Oct. 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
As you don't have the 9, the correct way to place the queen is in front of the KJTx. Simply don't care what they ask.

Anyway, I think most people play 4 as a splinter in this situation, thus asking 4 without asking 4 is strange.
Oct. 27
Csaba Czimer edited this comment Oct. 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In our relay precision:

1 - 1 2+, 10-15 // GF relay
1N - 2 BAL 11-14 // relay
2N - 3 5-332 // relay
3 - 3 3=2=3=5 // minor suit slam try
3N - 4 // lower range // RKC
4 - 7N

In 2/1 it might go:
1 - 1 3+ // 3+
1N - 2 BAL 11-14 may have major // GF
3 - 4 NAT, 5(+) // ORKC
4 - 4 bad hand // RKC
4 - 7N 0/3
Oct. 24
Csaba Czimer edited this comment Oct. 25
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Strange, I also wondered. What should opener bid lacking that? When we have 2 club losers we go beyond game?
Oct. 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Let's say they open 1NT. We can say the Opener defined his hand. What is your 3 here? Does opener's promised strength have influence on it?
Oct. 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Would partner open 1 this 2 loser hand?
Oct. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
West could not choose which Jxxx to underlead.
Oct. 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I also wrote about it :)
Oct. 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
We play it 4-card (for the sake of simplicity and my partner).
Our 2 is always INV+.

Another possibility is to keep the original (relay) system, that is:
- pass: I would have bid 2 (whatever it means), X from responder is the next relay)
- X: I would have bid 2 (whatever it means)
- 2N…: same as without intervention
Oct. 6
Csaba Czimer edited this comment Oct. 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Isn't 3 too valuable as natural(ish) bid to victimize?

If you happen to play second transfers after Jacoby you have an option:
- transfer then raise is 5 cards, GF
- transfer then 3N is 4-cards (the hand, that normally bid by Stayman and then 3N or 4M)

We almost always bid with balanced 4-card major GF like this, not revealing opener's hand.

If someone likes the idea of differentiate between flat and not-so-flat 4-card majors, (s)he can bid transfer then 3NT with flat, and Stayman with the not-so-flat ones.
Oct. 3
Csaba Czimer edited this comment Oct. 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Steve, you may be right, but I would not risk passing without pre-discussing this, even smart players can (and often do) think differently in undiscussed situations
Oct. 3
Csaba Czimer edited this comment Oct. 3
.

Bottom Home Top